Del Toro's The Shape of Water... hmmm...

[CaledonianGonzo]

Eeesh. Nope.

[Crabwalk]

If you watched this with without imagining Paddington replacing fishman in the bathroom scene you're a better person than I.

Loved the design, admired the acting, was bored by the generic story. I'm another person who kept thinking 'well, this is just a saucy Splash really, isn't it?'

That said, it does get bonus points for featuring a romantic lead who eats a cat's head .

[St_Eddie]

...it does get bonus points for featuring a romantic lead who eats a cat's head .

Agreed, there's not enough films where the romantic lead eats a little pussy.

[Crabwalk]

Mate.

[St_Eddie]

I've been told.  Damn.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Loved the design, admired the acting, was bored by the generic story.

They show her incipient gills too early. It gives the game away from the off and takes a lot of the suspense out of it.

The scripts all just a bit to.....on the nose.

Also, you think Michael Shannon might have brought up Boardwalk Empire at some point when discussing his character with Bill of the Bull..

[a duncandisorderly]

....this is the guy who made Hellboy and Pacific Rim, I must admit the latter is a bit of a guilty pleasure but classy ambitious cinema it is not.

I'm pretty sure he only made PR because he wanted to show michael fucking bay how to do robots fighting.
loads wrong with it, but it really does make 'transformers' look like the piss-poor shite it is.

[Mister Six]

The Hollywood stuff definitely I'v never quite understood where a lot of the praise comes from, maybe the likable geekish persona? I was a bit mystied by the common claim that the Hobbit films for example would have had more depth to them if he'd ended up making them, this is the guy who made Hellboy and Pacific Rim, I must admit the latter is a bit of a guilty pleasure but classy ambitious cinema it is not.

Pacific Rim is the platonic action movie, pared down to only the necessary action and character beats. It's supposed to be a guilty pleasure. Hellboy likewise, but it is filled with ideas and character beats that wouldn't make it into a more conventional mainstream comic book movie. It's not Ant-Man.

And he's also the guy who made Cronos, Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth. It's disingenuous to imply that he lacks range.

Anyway - Shape of Water was fucking great. Lush, beautiful, and capable of making a point about otherness and white/heterosexual/Christian supremacy in America without turning into a superwoke lecture on those things. Felt a bit weird watching Paddington's mum get her tits out though. Especially after all the underwater stuff with her in Paddington 2.

[greenman]

Choice between this and Phantom thread tomorrow most likely, not sure what I'll go with.

Pacific Rim is the platonic action movie, pared down to only the necessary action and character beats. It's supposed to be a guilty pleasure. Hellboy likewise, but it is filled with ideas and character beats that wouldn't make it into a more conventional mainstream comic book movie. It's not Ant-Man.

And he's also the guy who made Cronos, Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth. It's disingenuous to imply that he lacks range.

Anyway - Shape of Water was fucking great. Lush, beautiful, and capable of making a point about otherness and white/heterosexual/Christian supremacy in America without turning into a superwoke lecture on those things. Felt a bit weird watching Paddington's mum get her tits out though. Especially after all the underwater stuff with her in Paddington 2.

Certainly I appreciate the Spainish language stuff a good deal and as entertaining diversions the blockbusters certainly aren't bad at all, its more the rather extreme praise that the latter seem to get(from people who haven't seen the former) that I don't quite understand.

[Mister Six]

I found Shape of Water far more engaging, visually, emotionally and intellectually. Phantom Thread is an exquisite film, but not necessarily a terribly entertaining one.

Fair enough if you think the blockbuster stuff is overrated. I think it's excellent for what it is - superior smashy-bangy entertainment. And I don't think del Toro sees it as anything more than that either.

[Head Gardener]

spoiler alert - this was the best bit

(Yet another NWS image) https://78.media.tumblr.com/4c56cad49ee4f269a7e3764ab176332e/tumblr_p44btgl4y11whwo8io1_400.jpg

[greenman]

Ended up seeing it in the end on advice, a little mixed for me in that as mentioned the creature himself felt rather undersold and lacking in personality(not fashionable but I think a mostly CGI face might have helped here giving more expression) but the human cast and especially Sally Hawkins were a lot less twee than I feared. I imagined her as potentially much more clichéd and childlike so actually showing the character as an adult was a pleasant surprise. Honestly if anything the film felt like it could have made more of a point of its sexual politics, Jerkin's character being pushed out of his job and unrequited plus Shannon's rapist tendency's were introduced but could have been played for more drama IMHO.

[rjd2]

It was pretty bland sadly. Hawkins was great, but Shannon drags it down, not totally his fault, its just a dull character and he with all the side stories of Russia etc could have been minimised a lot more. The love story was rushed due to that and never felt that authentic.

[greenman]

Honestly I'm supprised that most of the award hype for it hasn't been behind Hawkins as I think she's by far the best thing in it. Don't think Shannon was bad performance wise but I felt like the character could have amounted to more and linked into her story more as hinted at by that one scene of him sexually threatening her.

It felt about 15-20 mins light in terms of actually introducing the creature to me and building the romance, more a kind of assumption that it would happen because that's what tends to in such films.

[Glebe]

Saw it Monday night... was actually a little surprized, it's not perfect but it's definitely his strongest film since Pan's Labyrinth... beautifully shot, great performances and a lot more dramatically involving than I was expecting. Hawkins is fantastic as Elisa, and Shannon is a suitable horrible bastard (he seems to be channelling Jack Palance in the scene at Zelda's house). Doug Jones does great work as the creature... there's something eerily naturalistic about his performance in the scene where Elisa first plays him a record.

As I said, I didn't think it was perfect... it kind of go off the boil and meanders for a few scenes around three-quarters of the way in, and while I admire it for exploring issues such as prejudice and that (in a somewhat on-the-nose manner, tbh), it strangely loses its focus on the creature itself at times. And it is a little twee by turns, while some the sex stuff is a touch unnecessary. But yeah, overall I thought it was a pretty fine film.

[Twit 2]

It was fucking great, you miserable bastards. Not a 5 star masterpiece, not quite as good as Pan's Labyrinth, but a really solid (4 star?), beautifully made thing. It was charming and touching and Shannon was on particularly fine mental form.

[greenman]

Pan's did have the advantage that it really merged the fantastical and the more down to earth plots together perfectly which I'm not sure happened quite as well here. Again it did feel that it introduced Jarkin's character being gay in an effective fashion before making a quiet on the nose comment on it and leaving it at that, not really relating it or Shannon's sexual threats much to her relationship with the creature. Actually having Hawkin's character as someone who's sexually active and tells people to fuck off did I think help avoid her becoming too childlike and twee which was my main fear before watching it.

[iamcoop]

I thought this was pretty boring in the end.

Looked nice, some very good central performances but I didn't have any emotional investment in the relationship at all. The monster has zero personality and you're left wondering exactly why she falls for it/him. Predictable ending and some pretty bizarre and misjudged sex scenes.

2 bags of popcorn

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Thought it was a deeply average film, a whimsical conceit with added sex and violence to try and propel it beyond being a mediocre children's film to being a profound work of art. That it was not. It reminded me of Benjamin Button in that respect.

The plot was so limited and predictable and the ending a poor attempt to revive Pan's Labyrinth but without any of the setup to justify the attempt at emotional manipulation.

The characters never managed to feel anything more than skin deep. I've seen 90s action movies with more pathos.

Also the attempt to only use three colours in the entire film rendered it another piece of dull and derivative art.

Slight plus points for the competent cgi, an at times humourous bad guy and a sensitive performance by the central character.

Actually thought the sex scene, while bizarre and ill fitting was at least brave.

Would never watch this again.

[greenman]

It did kind of feel halfway between a more standard monster film and something more interesting than that, again I think not quiet committing things like showing the underlying sexual threat of Shannon's character ultimately just having him as a McCarthyist goon instead.

[Twit 2]

MISERABLE BASTARDS

[greenman]

More a reaction how hyped it was, I'd say 7 or 8/10ish, mostly for Hawkins though.

I mean worse films get nominated for Oscars all the time but as a genre film given a chance I wouldn't say this is one of the very best ala say Fury Road, still haven't seen anything that I think deserves to beat Three Billboards although I haven't seen either Phantom Thread or Call Me by Your Name.

[CaledonianGonzo]

I'm a romantic and usually a sucker for this sort of stuff.  I weep buckets at the drop of a hat. This is still a tedious misfire that people would be laughing out of the cinemas if it wasn't for Sally Hawkins working wonders.

[St_Eddie]

As a man with a fish fetish, I was able to climax.

10/10

[Mister Six]

MISERABLE BASTARDS

Aye. Standard CaB Ironic Review/desperate iconoclast form though.

[CaledonianGonzo]

My reasons for finding it simultaneously puddle-shallow and heavy handed are completely sincere, thank you very much.

[Crabwalk]

Aye. Standard CaB Ironic Review/desperate iconoclast form though.

Can't comprehend anyone having a different opinion eh?

I've loved Del Toro's films in the past for their artistry and storytelling. A boxset of his work was one of my first Blu-Ray purchases. This film is an expansion on his classic aesthetic and themes, and is admirable as a portrayal (however heavy-handed)  of societal aggression towards 'otherness'. A patronising pat on the back from me for that and for the excellent performances.

But as a piece of storytelling it just dragged and was generic and predictable. Like CaledonianGonzo I'll get watery-eyed at anything - just yesterday during the Matilda musical, for example - but this got me nowhere near, despite its very best shamelessly manipulative efforts (e.g. the trope of resurrecting the protagonist from the dead via the power of love/magic).

I think it's a good film, but falls well short of greatness. If you, or the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences disagrees, then fine. I don't doubt your sincerity.

Paddington 2 is a better film.

[Bronzy]

Paddington 2 is a better film.

You don't see Sally Hawkins' jugs in that though

Jugs out = Oscar nomination

[Bad Ambassador]

Counter-example: Scarlett Johansson in Under the Skin.

[Bronzy]

Counter-example: Scarlett Johansson in Under the Skin.

Alien jugs = Chicago Film Critics Association award nomination